January 18, 2006
Feeling Completely Hopeless - The Iranian Nuclear Problem
:Iran’s decision this past week to restart their nuclear program appeared to come out of nowhere. Many have recently speculated as to how the European Union’s talks with Tehran failed or how the United States can get the Russians and the Chinese on board for new sanctions. But this is a distorted conversation. Iran’s re-started nuclear ambition was easily predictable with the events ongoing in neighboring Iraq.
At the outset of the invasion of Iraq, conservative columnists lined up to praise the invasion as a way to demonstrate to other dictators what would happen if they “misbehaved.” When, five days after Saddam Hussein was arrested, Muammar al-Qaddafi announced his intention to give up a WMD program, conservatives saw this as proof. Charles Krauthammer, at the time, wrote that it could not be a coincidence. Dictators were feeling the “aftershocks of war.” For the sake of argument and ignoring many scholars who point to Qaddafi offering the same thing for four years to end Western sanctions, let’s assume that Krauthammer was right - the invasion of Iraq did make nations more civil – then we are in store for a difficult few years.
The problem with this conservative view that a successful invasion would be a message to the rest of the world is what happens when the invasion fails or at least bogs down. The invasion tied up our military. Over 100,000 troops are stationed just across the border in Iraq but none of them can be spared to threaten Iran. Effectively the United States does not have any teeth. If the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a message, a rogue state now knows they have until the United States leaves Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. If you accept the argument, then you also accept that the rest of the world gets the opposite message if the invasion fails.
And that is where we are with a failed invasion. If you agreed with Krauthammer’s views three years ago, you would have assumed that if Iraq failed you would end up where we are today. That is why I was so surprised today when I read Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post where he blamed the European Union’s misguided and naïve talks with Iran. It was a complete red herring argument.
While, the European Union’s talks with Tehran may have been imperceptive of the true Iranian desire, one should not hold the EU accountable for that. They had little choice. If there are two ways of dealing with the situation a) diplomacy and b) military, they had no choice when the US invaded Iraq. And when the wheels came off the US military in Iraq, there was no threat. Of course, the Iranians pulled out of their commitments to arms inspections and seals. They always wanted a nuke and now they had their chance.
All of this angers me. I share this administration’s desire to limit the nuclear club and do not feel comfortable with a Tehran hot button. But it isn’t surprising. After all we have been hopeless to do anything about it since we tied up our military for a decade in invading Iraq. That Krauthammer and other conservatives didn’t see it coming doesn’t make it unexpected. Just them blind to the problems of invading Iraq.
(Filed under: Iraq, Bush Administration, Middle East, Iran, Commentary, Europe, America, Global Issues, Nuclear Proliferation, European Union)
January 21, 2006
Comments are now live
:You ask and I provide. I have finally taken the time to allow commenting on the Tim Fry Report. At this point it is pretty basic, as I did not have time to fully test it. Line breaks will not work and I didn’t do a lot of work to stop spam. Depending on how this works out (i.e. how many responses there are), I may add more features. And in terms of the report, obviously a weekly update was simply too ambitious. I will try to post news commentaries more often and occasionally a news article that has fallen through the cracks. Thanks for sticking with me. Happy responding.
(Filed under: Commentary, Why I am Back)
January 28, 2006
Behind the scenes upgrade
:Today, the Tim Fry Report is being run by Word Press 2.0. I am not sure that you will see big changes on the site with this upgrade but it is a significant upgrade behind the scenes. Lots of features to make running this site even easier. In addition, I am finally satisfied with the theme. All of the css is now written for both display on the screen and for print, especially the new reply stuff. Actual posts to come early this week.
(Filed under: Commentary, Why I am Back)
January 31, 2006
The Alito Confirmation: Wiser Heads Prevailed
:One of the problems with the landscape that is the politically charged, partisan fragmented electorate is that we rarely get a chance to actually see/participate in a true debate of what is right for our nation’s future. With the nomination of Samuel Alito to the highest court in the land, there were three dialogues that could have been helpful to our nation’s future: 1) how do we see the separation of powers factoring into a world where the executive has much more power than the framers intended, 2) how much say should Congress have in the advise and consent of new justices, and 3) do the potential justices current views have any bearing on whether they should sit on the Supreme Court.
Alas, the nation had none of those conversations in the lead up for Alito’s confirmation today and we are none the wiser for it.
Alito is still mainly an unknown. He is clearly conservative. And from past decisions on the separation of powers to gerrymandering of districts, he is far to the right of the middle and far from my comfort level. He seems like a nice enough fellow, even if I do not agree with a thing he believes. But I cannot say that for sure, since once again we did not have a substantive discussion about him. Once again we have an unknown placed on the high court. Once again we as a nation did not have a valuable conversation.
This is something that everyone in this nation bears a responsibility for. We have not demanded or even asked for such a debate. So instead we get a bunch of showboating Senators asking questions in the middle of a long speech against or for the nominee. We learn nothing about Alito in this process.
The sad thing is that if Alito had answered truthfully and given us a good glimpse of what he believed and what his judicial philosophy entailed, many Senators would have voted against him. For instance, had he admitted that he will overturn Roe v. Wade because he believes its decision does not follow from the Constitution (which is hardly an uncommon position among Constitutional scholars), he would have been successfully filibustered yesterday. By not saying anything, Alito guaranteed his confirmation. But that doesn’t allow any of us to have a better idea of his beliefs or the direction the nation is headed. We the people do not benefit.
Why am I writing all of this when the title of this piece is “Wiser heads prevailed?” As I stated in the third paragraph, I do not necessarily agree with known Alito views. But I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Today, I would have voted to confirm him to become the 110th> Justice of the Supreme Court. He clearly is a man of integrity and has a sound judicial mind. To me that is the power the Constitution grants to the Senate in the confirmation process. He meets both. But I still have serious misgivings about the entire process. We have not learned much about Alito nor have we had a conversation about this nation’s future. But the system could have gotten so much worse had the filibuster worked yesterday.
Had a parliamentary procedure derailed his nomination yesterday, Democrats would have introduced a new level of pettiness and partisanship, much like Clinton’s impeachment did eight years ago. Thankfully, numerous Democrats joined Republicans and voted to close debate so that today’s confirmation vote could take place. While Senators should be blamed for allowing the confirmation hearings to descend into such an abyss, they should also be at least recognized for allowing a vote to take place. The system is bad but it could only have gotten worse.